Yeah, but you’re still supporting a system where the people you advocate regulation to are the people who have a material interest against regulation (or, more accurately, have a material interest in regulations that give them a monopoly.)
Well, the Nordics prove they can hold their politicians accountable, while at the same time be prosperous.
They sure act like they do, with the way they use their military, intelligence services, and international bodies they control to enforce their will on the global South.
Have the Nordics sent military into poor countries to enforce their will?
There are no legally-binding and harmonised rules on a global level for everyone to follow.
I would encourage you to learn even the smallest amount of history. Generally its respectful to actually have some knowledge of a subject before trying to talk on it.
Since you sound so sure, tell me, will Saudi Arabia and Gulf countries be punished for using what is essentially slave labour from India? Can you name global rules and regulations that are legally-binding, and thus violating them will have serious legal repercussions to the offending country?
Well, the Nordics prove they can hold their politicians accountable, while at the same time be prosperous.
No? They’re experiencing the same right-wing slide into austerity and neoliberalism as everyone else.
Have the Nordics sent military into poor countries to enforce their will?
Yes. But they also benifit just as much when other western countries do. If the USA overthrows a government to stop it nationalising state resources that are currently controlled by western corporations, the Nordics benifit just as much as if they’d done it themselves.
Since you sound so sure, tell me, will Saudi Arabia and Gulf countries be punished for using what is essentially slave labour from India?
Whataboutism
Can you name global rules and regulations that are legally-binding, and thus violating them will have serious legal repercussions to the offending country?
Trying to nationalise resources that are currently controlled by western interests.
No? They’re experiencing the same right-wing slide into austerity and neoliberalism as everyone else.
Their left wing parties are still dominant. Finland recently defeated the far right in local elections. Sweden’s far right in coalition government lost support. Nonetheless, even though the far right reared its ugly in the region, the economic policies is not fully to blame.
Yes. But they also benifit just as much when other western countries do. If the USA overthrows a government to stop it nationalising state resources that are currently controlled by western corporations, the Nordics benifit just as much as if they’d done it themselves.
In what way?
Since you sound so sure, tell me, will Saudi Arabia and Gulf countries be punished for using what is essentially slave labour from India?
Whataboutism
Can you name global rules and regulations that are legally-binding, and thus violating them will have serious legal repercussions to the offending country?
Trying to nationalise resources that are currently controlled by western interests.
Have you tried answering the questions specifically and directly? Or is the non-sequitur response your tacit admission that there aren’t any global rules to follow? Your last point is precisely the consequence of the lack of legally-binding rules on international level.
No? Neoliberalism and austerity are more influential than any Marxist party, and getting more so every election.
Finland recently defeated the far right in local elections. Sweden’s far right in coalition government lost support.
Mate, you’re literally describing what I was talking about.
Nonetheless, even though the far right reared its ugly in the region, the economic policies is not fully to blame.
Yes it is.
In what way?
Because they retain access to those cheap resources.
Or is the non-sequitur response your tacit admission that there aren’t any global rules to follow?
Learn what a non-sequitor is before throwing the term around. I don’t want to have to ask a third time for you to actually learn the basics about things before talking about them.
Your last point is precisely the consequence of the lack of legally-binding rules on international level.
Oh, so you acknowledge now that western countries can impose their will on the global South? I thought you said that their “lack of jurisdiction” meant they weren’t allowed to? Are you now saying western countries can don’t actually have to follow the rules and can just do it anyway? Because if so, I will only be able to conclude that you were being deliberately dishonest when you said otherwise.
No? Neoliberalism and austerity are more influential than any Marxist party, and getting more so every election.
How has the Nordics been more neoliberal? They still tax billionaires. They enjoy high standard of living and little wealth inequality. These are the balance that neither the US nor USSR could achieve.
Finland recently defeated the far right in local elections. Sweden’s far right in coalition government lost support.
Mate, you’re literally describing what I was talking about.
Which contradict your initial claims that Nordics are becoming more right.
Or is the non-sequitur response your tacit admission that there aren’t any global rules to follow?
Learn what a non-sequitor is before throwing the term around. I don’t want to have to ask a third time for you to actually learn the basics about things before talking about them.
You claimed that throughout history, there has been international laws and standards. I asked you what they are and gave me a non-response to a previous statement that does not have to do with what I asked or my point. Just because a word is too big for you, doesn’t mean you can make accusations on a mirror. You did not even address when i asked you as to how the Nordics benefit from American imperialism when you said they do.
Your last point is precisely the consequence of the lack of legally-binding rules on international level.
Oh, so you acknowledge now that western countries can impose their will on the global South? I thought you said that their “lack of jurisdiction” meant they weren’t allowed to? Are you now saying western countries can don’t actually have to follow the rules and can just do it anyway? Because if so, I will only be able to conclude that you were being deliberately dishonest when you said otherwise.
When it is Saudi Arabia and Gulf states violating human rights, you brushed it aside as whataboutism. But when it is specifically about an entity you hate that is just as guilty, you give it a pass. That is called double standards.
To go back to the point you are trying to derail, these countries act with impunity because they know they could not be held accountable. When it comes to trade, no country has jurisdiction on another on how to treat and pay their workers even if the more developed countries want to tell poorer nations to do so. More often, governments in developing countries would cite sovereignty as thought terminating response to criticisms of human rights violations by the international community. That is why the Nordics, with very little to no colonialist past compared to major Western European countries, have no power to tell the global south how to treat their workers. Because the nation state is given supremacy over international rules, which is why in practice there are no rules. The fact that there are none is why you can’t cite any legally binding international laws when I asked you upon initially insisting there are. So, the accusations of social democratic countries exploiting the global south do not make sense given the current international paradigm. Because social democratic countries have no power and right.
I see we’re breaking out the big book of meaningless redditor buzzwords.
How has the Nordics been more neoliberal? They still tax billionaires.
“Neoliberalism is when no tax billionaires”
They enjoy high standard of living and little wealth inequality.
And both metrics are moving in the wrong direction.
These are the balance that neither the US nor USSR could achieve
???
Show your working.
Which contradict your initial claims that Nordics are becoming more right.
No… They literally support it.
You claimed that throughout history, there has been international laws and standards
No, that was you.
I asked you what they are and gave me a non-response to a previous statement that does not have to do with what I asked or my point.
No, I gave you an answer that you didn’t like, so you are now having to childishly pretend I didn’t.
Just because a word is too big for you, doesn’t mean you can make accusations on a mirror.
You should go back to Reddit, you’ll be happier there.
You did not even address when i asked you as to how the Nordics benefit from American imperialism when you said they do.
I literally did actually. So, given that you’re now electing to not read what I said and then pretend I didn’t say it, I’m not going to read anything more you say until you go back and address what I factually did say
I’ll also point out that it really is damning of the viability of your position that you have to resort to deliberate and obvious dishonesty to defend it. What even is the point of holding a position that you yourself don’t think is seriously defendable?
Are you 12? Otherwise you’re way too old to be using five dollar phrases you don’t know the meaning of after you’ve prattled off on a bunch of shit you clearly don’t have even a YouTube infographics-level understanding of.
Lol. Is that really the best you could come up with as a deflection? You might as well have gone with “U mad?” if you were going to be that unoriginal.
Well, the Nordics prove they can hold their politicians accountable, while at the same time be prosperous.
Have the Nordics sent military into poor countries to enforce their will?
Since you sound so sure, tell me, will Saudi Arabia and Gulf countries be punished for using what is essentially slave labour from India? Can you name global rules and regulations that are legally-binding, and thus violating them will have serious legal repercussions to the offending country?
No? They’re experiencing the same right-wing slide into austerity and neoliberalism as everyone else.
Yes. But they also benifit just as much when other western countries do. If the USA overthrows a government to stop it nationalising state resources that are currently controlled by western corporations, the Nordics benifit just as much as if they’d done it themselves.
Whataboutism
Trying to nationalise resources that are currently controlled by western interests.
Their left wing parties are still dominant. Finland recently defeated the far right in local elections. Sweden’s far right in coalition government lost support. Nonetheless, even though the far right reared its ugly in the region, the economic policies is not fully to blame.
In what way?
Have you tried answering the questions specifically and directly? Or is the non-sequitur response your tacit admission that there aren’t any global rules to follow? Your last point is precisely the consequence of the lack of legally-binding rules on international level.
No? Neoliberalism and austerity are more influential than any Marxist party, and getting more so every election.
Mate, you’re literally describing what I was talking about.
Yes it is.
Because they retain access to those cheap resources.
Learn what a non-sequitor is before throwing the term around. I don’t want to have to ask a third time for you to actually learn the basics about things before talking about them.
Oh, so you acknowledge now that western countries can impose their will on the global South? I thought you said that their “lack of jurisdiction” meant they weren’t allowed to? Are you now saying western countries can don’t actually have to follow the rules and can just do it anyway? Because if so, I will only be able to conclude that you were being deliberately dishonest when you said otherwise.
Looks like you are having cognitive dissonance.
How has the Nordics been more neoliberal? They still tax billionaires. They enjoy high standard of living and little wealth inequality. These are the balance that neither the US nor USSR could achieve.
Which contradict your initial claims that Nordics are becoming more right.
You claimed that throughout history, there has been international laws and standards. I asked you what they are and gave me a non-response to a previous statement that does not have to do with what I asked or my point. Just because a word is too big for you, doesn’t mean you can make accusations on a mirror. You did not even address when i asked you as to how the Nordics benefit from American imperialism when you said they do.
When it is Saudi Arabia and Gulf states violating human rights, you brushed it aside as whataboutism. But when it is specifically about an entity you hate that is just as guilty, you give it a pass. That is called double standards.
To go back to the point you are trying to derail, these countries act with impunity because they know they could not be held accountable. When it comes to trade, no country has jurisdiction on another on how to treat and pay their workers even if the more developed countries want to tell poorer nations to do so. More often, governments in developing countries would cite sovereignty as thought terminating response to criticisms of human rights violations by the international community. That is why the Nordics, with very little to no colonialist past compared to major Western European countries, have no power to tell the global south how to treat their workers. Because the nation state is given supremacy over international rules, which is why in practice there are no rules. The fact that there are none is why you can’t cite any legally binding international laws when I asked you upon initially insisting there are. So, the accusations of social democratic countries exploiting the global south do not make sense given the current international paradigm. Because social democratic countries have no power and right.
I see we’re breaking out the big book of meaningless redditor buzzwords.
“Neoliberalism is when no tax billionaires”
And both metrics are moving in the wrong direction.
???
Show your working.
No… They literally support it.
No, that was you.
No, I gave you an answer that you didn’t like, so you are now having to childishly pretend I didn’t.
You should go back to Reddit, you’ll be happier there.
I literally did actually. So, given that you’re now electing to not read what I said and then pretend I didn’t say it, I’m not going to read anything more you say until you go back and address what I factually did say
I’ll also point out that it really is damning of the viability of your position that you have to resort to deliberate and obvious dishonesty to defend it. What even is the point of holding a position that you yourself don’t think is seriously defendable?
It never gets old when someone’s having cognitive dissonance.
Are you 12? Otherwise you’re way too old to be using five dollar phrases you don’t know the meaning of after you’ve prattled off on a bunch of shit you clearly don’t have even a YouTube infographics-level understanding of.
Removed by mod
Lol. Is that really the best you could come up with as a deflection? You might as well have gone with “U mad?” if you were going to be that unoriginal.